[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# No Subject

- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 08:56:51 PST
- From:
- Cc: MOO Cows <moo-cows@parc.xerox.com>
- In-reply-to: Rich Connamacher's message of "Wed, 17 Jan 1996 08:10:31 PST" <Pine.SUN.3.91.960117075841.9791A-100000@simon>

    Rich Connamacher writes:
    > How is call_function("notify", player, "SPAM"); any different from
    > eval("notify(player, \"SPAM\");")?  I fail to see how this adds any new
    > functionality to the server, just maybe a slightly more convienent form
    > than eval in some cases.

    It's in a much more convenient form (you don't have to muck about with
    toliteral() to convert the arguments into literals that can appear in MOO code,
    you don't have to deal with issues like forgetting to put in `return' as you
    did, etc.) and it works for code that is running with the permissions of a
    non-programmer (when `eval' can't be called).  It is admittedly not a great
    leap forward in MOO programming power, but it is a sometimes convenient
    facility.  For example, the server now recovers from finding calls in the DB
    file it's loading to unknown built-in functions; it simply rewrites them on
    input into calls to `call_function()' with the obvious arguments.

    	Pavel

References:

- No Subject

- From: Rich Connamacher <phantom@baymoo.sfsu.edu>

- Prev: No Subject
- Next: No Subject
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index